Originally Posted by

**Pyoro**
I don't know enough about philosophy to compare, but I've always considered it subjective, and saw maths as being the study of things that were absolutely true – i.e. I considered deduction to be unquestionable (up to algebraic error, that is :H).

In part II, my failure to get to grips with Galois theory made me much more aware of the impact that culture and individuality has on how different kinds of maths are taught, learned and done (and repeat). The more advanced the maths gets, the more you take things on faith, the more you get into unchartered territory with your intuition, the more it seems that maths is true because everyone tried it and got the same answer, and that it being unquestionable would mean the thought process used to deduce it would have to be completely homogenised and robotic.

And so now I consider maths an empirical science of the mind... like philosophy. I wonder if there is some essential distinction I'm missing.